National Parks fear ‘power grab’ by government
THE independence of National Parks could be threatened by a new clause in their funding agreement that allows Defra to tell them how to spend their money.
National Park Authorities have a purpose to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Parks by the public.
They were established under the Environment Act 1995 as independent authorities to administer National Parks, and a meeting of Dartmoor National Park Authority on Friday was recommended to authorise the chief executive to sign their new National Park Grant Funding Agreement.
But Kevin Bishop, the chief executive of the Dartmoor National Park Authority, raised concerns over a new clause in the latest contract.
Clause 23 provides Defra with the power to change activities supported by the Grant and ‘requires’ the National Parks to accommodate any reasonable changes to Defra needs and requirements.
He told the meeting that while Defra say the clause would only be used in exceptional circumstances and the clause is a way of preserving their right to ‘get across any priority changes’, it does mean they have the power to mandate how the National Park spends its money.
He said that while they could decide not to sign the new funding agreement and in the short term the impact would be minimal as they have already received most of their allocated funding in this financial year.
But Mr Bishop said: “In the long term, I am not sure how sustainable that would be as the grant accounts for 78 per cent of our income.
“My sense is we need to raise the concerns with Defra about this. If we don’t get reassurance from officials, then my advice is to mandate the chair of the authority to write a letter to highlighting our concerns on clause 23 and now it threatens the independence of authorities. It is a risk as we could have a program and they then could turn round and tell us to spend money on this, so it is prudent for us to identify as a strategic risk.
“In an emergency, we would not refuse any reasonable request, but the
clause does give them that power, and my concern is over where it stops.”
Sally Morgan asked if there was any indication of what a reasonable requirement or change would be, or whether it gives Defra the carte blanche to do what they want.
Mr Bishop said that there was no list but the example Defra cited was if there was a foot and mouth outbreak that they demanded that we spend money on biosecurity measures, for instance.
Pamela Woods, chairman of the authority, said it was difficult to know how big the risk is. She said: “It could be just them bringing the paperwork in line with cabinet office guidance and they have no intention of threatening us or using it. What we don’t know though is how big the risk is and at what point do they demand we spend the money. It could be something that never troubles, but we simply don’t know.”
Philip Sanders said that while the authority doesn’t have much choice but to sign it – as not doing so would be ludicrous – Defra had to be told that this was fundamentally contrary to how National Parks should be run.
He said: “It feels like someone in central government is trying to slide something through when everyone else busy with other things. This gives them an iron fist over expenditure and we could potentially be severely curtailed by them as it has the scope to remove completely how we spend the money each year.”
Making reference to the Government’s current paralysis over Brexit, he added: “This is an act of typical treasury centralisation and control and it is happening at a time when the people who might be thinking this isn’t right have their minds are on other things, and while their minds are elsewhere, they may slip something through and tie the hands of National Parks.”
It was agreed the chairman of the authority would write to Defra highlighting the concerns and how ‘clause 23’ may threaten the independence of Park Authorities, and that they wouldn’t sign the funding agreement until they had a response from a minister. Mrs Morgan added: “Don’t hold back in the letter. The clause is so open ended and open for potential for abuse.”